bigfatbuddhist:sardonicobserver: The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only renewable sources that remotely have the capacity to support the current world population are nuclear fission and fusion power. There seems to be small factions in the governments of all the developed countries that are providing enough information to keep the funding and progress going, and the future is fusion power with nuclear, hydroelectric, solar of several types, and wind power as players, and we are headed there but that's not where the clickbait is, and it doesn't have a partisan ring to it.

Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only renewable sources that remotely have the capacity to support the current world population are nuclear fission and fusion power. There seems to be small factions in the governments of all the developed countries that are providing enough information to keep the funding and progress going, and the future is fusion power with nuclear, hydroelectric, solar of several types, and wind power as players, and we are headed there but that's not where the clickbait is, and it doesn't have a partisan ring to it.

Yeah but the thing you're forgetting is if we get enough people to immigrate north we can tip the flat disc that is earth away from the sun, and cool things down, while at the same time heating up south america and sticking it to the brown people ! Keep your eyes on the prize here dude. I rest my case.

Sean VasDeferens:Gubbo: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

Gubbo:Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

Lucky LaRue:Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

UNC_Samurai:Gubbo: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

I'm sure he's just really concerned about Mexico City getting hit by this hurricane.

Gubbo:Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

Lucky LaRue:Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

sardonicobserver:The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate".

So, you believe the data on climate change has been deceptively doctored as part of a conspiracy to do...things... And as proof, you provide data that has long been proven to have not only been deceptively doctored, but also selectively taken out of context?

Well... Our days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.

wearetheworld:Gubbo: wearetheworld: Gubbo: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

Guybird:Sean VasDeferens: UNC_Samurai: We just went 12 years without a hurricane making landfall in the U.S.

Ike, Irene, and Matthew would like to have a word with this pig-farking ignorance.

Get woke https://www.washingtonpost.com/n​ews/energy-environment/wp/2017/09/07/t​he-science-behind-the-u-s-s-strange-hu​rricane-drought-and-its-sudden-end/?no​redirect=on&utm_term=.c76f81dbcc9d

Since 2005, though, we've experienced no major U.S. landfalls until Harvey this year.

Hurricane Hermine: Sept. 2016, this Category 1 storm was the first hurricane to hit Florida since Hurricane Wilma in 2005.• Hurricane Arthur: July 2014, this storm whipped North Carolina's Outer Banks with winds of 100 mph, making it a Category 2.• Hurricane Sandy: Oct. 2012, Superstorm Sandy, the largest Atlantic system on record, slammed into New Jersey. It was the deadliest hurricane to hit the northeastern U.S. in 40 years and the second-costliest in the nation's history.Hurricane Isaac: Aug. 2012, this deadly Category 1 storm hit the coast of Louisiana and Mississippi right around the seventh anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.• Hurricane Irene: Sept. 2011, Irene hit North Carolina as a Category 1 storm. The storm caused major flooding in the northeast, and Irene's effects were felt along the entire Eastern seaboard.• Hurricane Ike: Sept. 2008, the last hurricane to strike Texas was Hurricane Ike, a powerful Category 2 storm that caused billions in damage and became the third most costly storm in the U.S., after Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina.• Hurricane Gustav: Sept. 2008, tens of thousands evacuated before this Category 2 storm hit the Louisiana coast, New Orlean's first major storm since Katrina.Hurricane Dolly: July 2008, Dolly made landfall in Texas as a Category 2 storm and gradually weakened to a tropical storm as it progressed.•Hurricane Humberto:Sept. 2007, although initially weak this record-breaking storm intensified rapidly before making landfall in Texas as a Category 1 storm.

I'm a Climate Scientist. Could have gone the energy sector, sold my soul and gotten that sweet lambo and Climate Scientist groupie sex. Could have gone college research and gotten that cool ramien instant soup bowl money and Climate Research Assistance sex but I got in to ladders research. Only benefit: Send RA Julie up a ten footer. "I know you're wearing a skirt and we're all profession dudes holding our phones, but it's for science. So climb it, lady. Climb it!"

Smoking GNU:holdmybones: Glockenspiel Hero: It was absurd last night- the wunderground hurricane blog discussion was completely overrun with these idiots, all spouting their Fox News approved talking points just like Lucky Lamoron above.

They all sound so authoritative if you know nothing about the science, and they are so deep into the Dunning Kruger hole they have no idea how stupid they sound to the weather nerds on that forum.

And yes, Lucky, we all understand the difference between weather and climate. Perhaps you'd like to discuss ocean heat content over time and the effect of rising sea temperatures on tropical storm formation?

I tuned in for a few minutes yesterday and....is hurricane/weather denial a new thing?

Yup. It's the newest troll/rightwing tactic. Call any reporting on a storm as overblown and fearmongering by the MSM for profit.

Wild how they can handwave everything away with 'the jews tricked us into believing that happened", which is what they really mean by the 'msm' or 'Soros'.

Nevermind that, tho. Nobody tell them about the jewgold that the Jews hid behind our eyesockets that can only be reached if you dig around your eyeballs with a knife.

One, nobody wants to do anything about the climate change issue unless they can make money off of it. But even if they really didn't go for the money first, is there really anything we can do about it?

Two, the climate is always changing. Is it changing faster because of man? Who knows? The people in the US are too busy trying to turn a profit off of it.

There is no doubt in my mind that the earth is warming. I just have no idea what's causing it or if it's even something we should try to change. The earth goes through warm and cold cycles. Maybe it's like geology in that 10K years is the blink of an eye. So then we're stuck with stupid politicians trying to blame the democrats or republicans for everything. Well, that's part of the problem, it shouldn't be a democrat problem or a republican problem, it should be "What's best for the world". And of course that'll never happen because everyone is trying to make a buck off of the climate change issue.

So then we're stuck with many people like myself just giving up on the whole thing. I've installed LEDs, burn almost no petroleum products (electric cars rock but gas mowers are still better than electric ones), increased the amount of insulation in my house to conserve energy, recycle as much as possible, reduced my waste stream to where I have one bag of trash every two months and all of the other tree hugger stuff. But I'm mostly doing it for myself with the pleasant thought in the back of my head that it's good for the planet too.

I have religious family members from that region who have already said they think Panama City was hit by a hurricane because of all the proud people and sinfulness in the area, and that God was trying to make them repent and change there ways. That's right. It wasn't climate change, it was because the Florida Panhandle wasn't religious enough.

No worries. When the ocean is lapping at the gates of Mar-a-Lago whichever member of the Royal Family is on the throne will simply command the waters to recede.

Actually, as noted above, once enough companies start realizing they're losing money and Disney figures out resorts uninhabitable six months a year are unprofitable all of a sudden this will get a massive government program - probably paid for with cuts to Social Security and a national sales tax on baby formula.

The Dilbert guy seems like a real tool but I'm with him that economic models are the worst kind of models though the climate models are pretty good. This is discussed in The Signal and the Noise by Nate Silver, which I highly recommend.

HOWEVER! you probably don't need an economic model to tell you that natural disasters and flooding coastlines are expensive to deal with.

I posted the Dilbert strip because it represents a thumbnail of lots of pointless arguments. It's a bit sharper to one side than the other, though.

I've heard of The Signal and the Noise. I'm no stranger to modeling, prediction and statistics, so I looked at the book on Amazon. It's inexpensive and has the "Look Inside" feature. The TOC shows that it addresses things on a pretty high level using elementary arguments so it talks to a lot of people, but the introduction and Chapter 1 show the depth to be pretty limited -- other Amazon suggestions from the shopping cart page include "High School Math Made Simple." But it looks like a really excellent monolograph on what modeling and prediction is all about, with examples and curves, sort of like the book Augustine's Laws which is one of my favorites. So, I'm getting a copy and will read it. If it pans out, I'll offer it up to others when it seems constructive to do so.

Regarding sea level rise and flooding, yes, it is happening and it's real, and it seems obvious that the warming trend is a causative element there. Global temperature averages were 10 F lower during the height of the last Ice Age when glaciers reached the tropics, the sea level was tens of feet lower than it is today, and early Mongols walked from Siberia to Alaska on dry ground. But the "hockey stick" turned out to be an artifact of data manipulation and the selection of models and their results. Al Gore's famous slide show that was the basis of An Inconvenient Truth, once he was done saying "I used to be the next President of the United States" at the start of the movie, predicted that the "hockey stick" curve would continue and temperatures would run away, and that the sea levels would rise something like 30 feet by... 2020??? The fact that global temperatures declined slightly for a decade after 2000 didn't help his case, and ClimateGate exposed the bogus use of models in generating the hockey stick, most notably by Michael E. Mann, the author of the paper that defined the hockey stick to the climate science community. It appears that grant money or some similar influence(s) corrupted the climate science community beyond all credibility, disabling the capability of the climate science community to affect national policy. If there is anything we can do that would help, we need a credible basis to support huge, expensive decisions, but, there hasn't been one since then, so we don't know, and nobody will do anything really expensive. For that, you can blame the corruption of the climate science community.

holdmybones:Glockenspiel Hero: It was absurd last night- the wunderground hurricane blog discussion was completely overrun with these idiots, all spouting their Fox News approved talking points just like Lucky Lamoron above.

They all sound so authoritative if you know nothing about the science, and they are so deep into the Dunning Kruger hole they have no idea how stupid they sound to the weather nerds on that forum.

And yes, Lucky, we all understand the difference between weather and climate. Perhaps you'd like to discuss ocean heat content over time and the effect of rising sea temperatures on tropical storm formation?

I tuned in for a few minutes yesterday and....is hurricane/weather denial a new thing?

"It's raining like a motherfarker outside; trees blowing down, four feet of water in the streets."Er, no it's not. /turns off TV

Instead using unnamed peers to agree with a predetermined conclusion, try using the scientific method. Predictive models can't predict all the variables that are unpredictable. Are those peer reviewers also going to review all the carbon tax returns?

Lee451:sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only renewable sources ...

This. We were warned that, after Katrina, every hurricane would be a Katrina and there would be many more of them. It hasn't happened. How much of the current warming is man-made and how much is natural change is unknown. Climate change has been politicized and some people are getting a lot of use out of it.

You're correct. The world thinks it's a problem. One political party denies it.

sardonicobserver:Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only renewable sources ...

This. We were warned that, after Katrina, every hurricane would be a Katrina and there would be many more of them. It hasn't happened. How much of the current warming is man-made and how much is natural change is unknown. Climate change has been politicized and some people are getting a lot of use out of it.

Smoking GNU:holdmybones: Glockenspiel Hero: It was absurd last night- the wunderground hurricane blog discussion was completely overrun with these idiots, all spouting their Fox News approved talking points just like Lucky Lamoron above.

They all sound so authoritative if you know nothing about the science, and they are so deep into the Dunning Kruger hole they have no idea how stupid they sound to the weather nerds on that forum.

And yes, Lucky, we all understand the difference between weather and climate. Perhaps you'd like to discuss ocean heat content over time and the effect of rising sea temperatures on tropical storm formation?

I tuned in for a few minutes yesterday and....is hurricane/weather denial a new thing?

Yup. It's the newest troll/rightwing tactic. Call any reporting on a storm as overblown and fearmongering by the MSM for profit.

Bizarre. I saw this from the single trumper left in my life after the NC hurricane. Instead of the usual mocking weather reporters and the Weather Channel he turned it into some weird conspiracy thing that included Russia and anything negative about trump.

No one is denying climate change anymore. We can now officially drop that whole thing.

What people are denying is that humans are responsible. The main reason they are denying this is that regulations affect corporate profits. And these denials are at a national level of multiple HUGE countries.

The biggest problem with all of this is that the US is only one contributor. And we are doing some things to help. But that says nothing about the greatest contributors to the problem in other countries. And it makes matters far worse that when American companies are stifled too much by regulation, they move their pollution to another country that is more pollution friendly.

If you don't know that this is the problem than you haven't been paying attention.

GoldSpider:There's something to be said about those who want to blame everything under the sun (ha!) on man-made climate change, but here's the bottom line:

[farm5.static.flickr.com image 500x333]

Yeah, I don't get it. Do they really think it's clever and sophisticated to make our energy by digging up precious, irreplaceable chemical resources, and burning them, like cavemen?Converting to replaceable energy is our number one priority as a civilization, if we wish to continue to be one much longer.As it is it will be hard work, and take generations - and that's if everybody gets on board.Even if you don't believe in man made climate change - it's still a survival imperative.How stupid CAN they be?

grinnel:Gubbo: grinnel: Hurricane frequency doesn't really seem to show a significant change in the past 150 years. We look to be having a similar pattern to that around 1886http://www.stormfax.com/huryear.htm

If you're going to talk nonsense, at least argue that we have more hurricanes now than previously because satellite technology picks up storms that would otherwise have been missed.

So, what you're saying is that there could have been far more hurricanes that we didn't know about, and not showing a significant increase in the number of hurricanes with the increase in technology, we could be on a hurricane decline?

sardonicobserver:whidbey: sardonicobserver: Damnhippyfreak: and geologic evidence of global temperature, there is a causation presumption there; see previous post./It's going to rain next week.//Probably.///Somewhere.

Shorter-term weather-related prediction is a fundamentally different problem than long-term climate prediction (https://www.popsci.com/environment/ar​ticle/2009-03/weather-prediction-clima​te-prediction-what's-diff). It's the underlying reason why people tend to distinguish between climate and weather. Even more fundamentally, you can't say that all models are somehow untrustworthy because one kind has a wide margin of error.

It looks like you have at least an idea of what intellecutal honesty is. At this point, when faced with the idea that you have some basic misconceptions about this topic, you should be asking yourself just how informed you are about this topic, and whether your opinion is based on evidence or something else. Let's see what you choose to do.

User name checks out.

You might take his comments more seriously. He has facts, you have disinformaton.

So many SJW's have jumped on my posts, imagining a climate change denier, that I'm only replying to posts with substance. Those with ad hominem attacks or things like "you're dumb" or "I'm more knowledgeable than you" or "... the facts" I ignore. Sorry.

sardonicobserver:So many SJW's have jumped on my posts, imagining a climate change denier, that I'm only replying to posts with substance. Those with ad hominem attacks or things like "you're dumb" or "I'm more knowledgeable than you" or "... the facts" I ignore. Sorry.

beverly8:whidbey: beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: Gubbo: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

<snip>

Baffle with bullshiat

actually, the part about it being altered is true, however, they have been altered in the opposite direction. they arent being amped up, they have been being toned down. a lot.

algore

dude, its the total truth though. and, as a person who does not drive, lives in an apartment, uses reusable things rather than one time and toss products, still uses a note 4, and a computer that was my moms old one, and is probably about ten years old now, and barely ever flies, even though, as a person born abroad, and having almost my entire maternal side in france, i have more o a valid reason to fly frequently than a farking person being a tourist on vacation, and eats as much local foods as i can, i think i have every right to talk shiat about some high emitting douchebag who scolds everyone else about their emissions,

Yes, algore has a mansion and tells people what to do.

Nothing fishy about anyone who pushes this narrative.

i dont push it, dummy, you do. you are the one bringing him up, not me.

And in so doing, it belies your real perspective.

that he is a hypocrite? yes, that is my perspective. why are you swinging on his dick so hard?

I'm not 'swinging on anyone's dick,." but it's a litmus test, and you're not passing it.

beverly8:whidbey: beverly8: Gubbo: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

<snip>

Baffle with bullshiat

actually, the part about it being altered is true, however, they have been altered in the opposite direction. they arent being amped up, they have been being toned down. a lot.

algore

dude, its the total truth though. and, as a person who does not drive, lives in an apartment, uses reusable things rather than one time and toss products, still uses a note 4, and a computer that was my moms old one, and is probably about ten years old now, and barely ever flies, even though, as a person born abroad, and having almost my entire maternal side in france, i have more o a valid reason to fly frequently than a farking person being a tourist on vacation, and eats as much local foods as i can, i think i have every right to talk shiat about some high emitting douchebag who scolds everyone else about their emissions,

OldJames:It would be harder to deny climate change if there was a year of no hurricanes. Hurricanes are part of the south east's climate, and there is no way to tell if a hurricane is scheduled, or because of climate change.

To properly evaluate this, we have to wait a year or two, then run a nice statistical analysis, look at standard deviations, and then make sense of the data. A heat wave or a blizzard doesn't prove anything for anyone other than you know what the weather is outside. If you don't know how to calculate standard deviations, you should have went to high school, that one is on you.

ArinTheLost:sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only ...

Manmade catastrophic climate change is indisputable. It's a fact. We know what's causing climate change; it's human carbon emissions. It threatens to destroy the entire global ecosystem. You can sit here and play faux intellectual with your "both sides are bad" and "nobody really knows" bullshiat but at the end of the day, you're just showing off your ignorance.Honestly, reading comments like yours is infuriating because there is so much evidence that back up climate science that the only reason to have any doubt is laziness or willful ignorance.

I'd bookmark this thread as a beautiful example of derpish rwnj talking points & the incredible need to dress up idiocy in pseudoscientific terms, but the herpaderp is strong enough to require a prescription.

Gubbo:Sean VasDeferens: Gubbo: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

Instead using unnamed peers to agree with a predetermined conclusion, try using the scientific method. Predictive models can't predict all the variables that are unpredictable. Are those peer reviewers also going to review all the carbon tax returns?

sardonicobserver:Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only renewable sources that remotely have the capacity to support the current world population are nuclear fission and fusion power. There seems to be small factions in the governments of all the developed countries that are providing enough information to keep the funding and progress going, and the future is fusion power with nuclear, hydroelectric, solar of several types, and wind power as players, and we are headed there but that's not where the clickbait is, and it doesn't have a partisan ring to it.

Gubbo:wearetheworld: Gubbo: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

wearetheworld:jso2897: Gubbo: For the sake of the dumbest people in the world. The US isn't the only country.

The Atlantic isn't the only body of water.

The "make landfall" qualifier is totally irrelevant. It's a meaningless conversational gambit.Whether related death and damage have been rising dramatically - in the US, and elsewhere.How many storms are still at some arbitrary rating when they hit land is a meaningless, artificial red herring - thrown into the conversation to distract, rather than illuminate.

It's as if the world population is growing, and there are more people around to die because of weather.

I bet you actually believe this and haven't done any research on whether it could be true. It's just common sense, right?

wearetheworld:Gubbo: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

Gubbo:grinnel: Hurricane frequency doesn't really seem to show a significant change in the past 150 years. We look to be having a similar pattern to that around 1886http://www.stormfax.com/huryear.htm

If you're going to talk nonsense, at least argue that we have more hurricanes now than previously because satellite technology picks up storms that would otherwise have been missed.

So, what you're saying is that there could have been far more hurricanes that we didn't know about, and not showing a significant increase in the number of hurricanes with the increase in technology, we could be on a hurricane decline?

sardonicobserver:The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only renewable sources that remotely have the capacity to support the current world population are nuclear fission and fusion power. There seems to be small factions in the governments of all the developed countries that are providing enough information to keep the funding and progress going, and the future is fusion power with nuclear, hydroelectric, solar of several types, and wind power as players, and we are headed there but that's not where the clickbait is, and it doesn't have a partisan ring to it.

It was absurd last night- the wunderground hurricane blog discussion was completely overrun with these idiots, all spouting their Fox News approved talking points just like Lucky Lamoron above.

They all sound so authoritative if you know nothing about the science, and they are so deep into the Dunning Kruger hole they have no idea how stupid they sound to the weather nerds on that forum.

And yes, Lucky, we all understand the difference between weather and climate. Perhaps you'd like to discuss ocean heat content over time and the effect of rising sea temperatures on tropical storm formation?

Summoner101:bigfatbuddhist: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

Well, peer reviewed analysis didn't get them off their butts...

Like most Republicans, it's only when it directly affects them that there's any chance for change. Typically, that ends up in demands for handouts from the Fed though. If an actual change in thought occurs, the empathy/sympathy will be narrowly defined to their exact circumstances.

Now even some conservatives in the insurance industry are starting to come around to climate change. Must be messing with their bottom line or something.

bigfatbuddhist:Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

Well, peer reviewed analysis didn't get them off their butts...

Like most Republicans, it's only when it directly affects them that there's any chance for change. Typically, that ends up in demands for handouts from the Fed though. If an actual change in thought occurs, the empathy/sympathy will be narrowly defined to their exact circumstances.

how so? im calling him a hypocrite because of visible outward behaviors he has exhibited over the course of many years. he says he is concerned about the climate, he lectures on the climate, yet he has a very high carbon footprint. what would you call that?

Because it's difficult to get a message across while living out in the woods? I think Al Gore has the charisma of a log, but what would be gained by him making some pointless gesture?

To put it another way, that's like asking why a billionaire who argues for higher taxes on the rich doesn't just give all their money away. It completely misses the point of their arguement.

Humor appreciated but set aside, perhaps it's a competitive attitude problem in some cases. In developing countries, foregoing clean industry during start-up is perhaps forgivable because it's a small thing compared to the rest of the world, but then there are cases like China and others. China didn't begin to start trying to control atmospheric pollution until it became a major public health problem in their largest cities.

I once had a Nixon joke book that asked "When will Nixon do something about air pollution?" Answer was "When it interferes with TV reception." A news photo on a Chinese news site:

cameroncrazy1984:beverly8: salutations, random stranger on the internet, i shall now test you and determine your entire personality based on my faulty ass human interpretive bullshiat mind

duh.

Well you certainly did that for Al Gore so why not

how so? im calling him a hypocrite because of visible outward behaviors he has exhibited over the course of many years. he says he is concerned about the climate, he lectures on the climate, yet he has a very high carbon footprint. what would you call that?

beverly8:Gubbo: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

<snip>

Baffle with bullshiat

actually, the part about it being altered is true, however, they have been altered in the opposite direction. they arent being amped up, they have been being toned down. a lot.

sardonicobserver:Damnhippyfreak: and geologic evidence of global temperature, there is a causation presumption there; see previous post./It's going to rain next week.//Probably.///Somewhere.

Shorter-term weather-related prediction is a fundamentally different problem than long-term climate prediction (https://www.popsci.com/environment/ar​ticle/2009-03/weather-prediction-clima​te-prediction-what's-diff). It's the underlying reason why people tend to distinguish between climate and weather. Even more fundamentally, you can't say that all models are somehow untrustworthy because one kind has a wide margin of error.

It looks like you have at least an idea of what intellecutal honesty is. At this point, when faced with the idea that you have some basic misconceptions about this topic, you should be asking yourself just how informed you are about this topic, and whether your opinion is based on evidence or something else. Let's see what you choose to do.

User name checks out.

You might take his comments more seriously. He has facts, you have disinformaton.

whidbey:beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: Gubbo: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

<snip>

Baffle with bullshiat

actually, the part about it being altered is true, however, they have been altered in the opposite direction. they arent being amped up, they have been being toned down. a lot.

algore

dude, its the total truth though. and, as a person who does not drive, lives in an apartment, uses reusable things rather than one time and toss products, still uses a note 4, and a computer that was my moms old one, and is probably about ten years old now, and barely ever flies, even though, as a person born abroad, and having almost my entire maternal side in france, i have more o a valid reason to fly frequently than a farking person being a tourist on vacation, and eats as much local foods as i can, i think i have every right to talk shiat about some high emitting douchebag who scolds everyone else about their emissions,

Yes, algore has a mansion and tells people what to do.

Nothing fishy about anyone who pushes this narrative.

i dont push it, dummy, you do. you are the one bringing him up, not me.

And in so doing, it belies your real perspective.

that he is a hypocrite? yes, that is my perspective. why are you swinging on his dick so hard?

beverly8:whidbey: beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: Gubbo: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

<snip>

Baffle with bullshiat

actually, the part about it being altered is true, however, they have been altered in the opposite direction. they arent being amped up, they have been being toned down. a lot.

algore

dude, its the total truth though. and, as a person who does not drive, lives in an apartment, uses reusable things rather than one time and toss products, still uses a note 4, and a computer that was my moms old one, and is probably about ten years old now, and barely ever flies, even though, as a person born abroad, and having almost my entire maternal side in france, i have more o a valid reason to fly frequently than a farking person being a tourist on vacation, and eats as much local foods as i can, i think i have every right to talk shiat about some high emitting douchebag who scolds everyone else about their emissions,

Yes, algore has a mansion and tells people what to do.

Nothing fishy about anyone who pushes this narrative.

i dont push it, dummy, you do. you are the one bringing him up, not me.

whidbey:beverly8: Gubbo: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

<snip>

Baffle with bullshiat

actually, the part about it being altered is true, however, they have been altered in the opposite direction. they arent being amped up, they have been being toned down. a lot.

algore

dude, its the total truth though. and, as a person who does not drive, lives in an apartment, uses reusable things rather than one time and toss products, still uses a note 4, and a computer that was my moms old one, and is probably about ten years old now, and barely ever flies, even though, as a person born abroad, and having almost my entire maternal side in france, i have more o a valid reason to fly frequently than a farking person being a tourist on vacation, and eats as much local foods as i can, i think i have every right to talk shiat about some high emitting douchebag who scolds everyone else about their emissions,

Obscure Login:factoryconnection: Here's a olive branch to all you staunch defenders of the GOP's position that anthropogenic climate change is a Chinese hoax designed to make you all look foolish:

YOU'VE WON. We've done basically nothing about a problem that has been clearly defined and understood since the 70s and like the IPCC said we've run out of time short of crippling the world economy to reverse our course.

You've won.

You've won.

You don't need "skeptic" graphs. You don't need junk science paid for by oil lobbyists. You've already won. Just take your victory and gloat... there is literally nothing that will come of it in terms of US policy. Gloat through the heat waves, droughts, f*cked up weather patterns and longer, rainier tropical cyclones.

You won. All the red-hued luminaries in this thread represent the governing opinion in this nation and the world. Sardonicobserver, Zeb Hesselgresser, et al... you won. We're doing what you advocate: absolutely nothing.

Here was a Tweet from noted asshole Erick Erickson yesterday...

[img.fark.net image 535x220]

So maybe they are turning that corner, will set aside their bullshiat talking points will just flatly admit that they don't care. Then we no longer have to get into these exhausting conversations.

"Erick Woods Erickson is a politically conservative American blogger and radio host. He hosts the radio show Atlanta's Evening News with Erick Erickson, broadcast on 750 WSB, and runs the blog The Resurgent"

bdub77:My father in law and me last night."Climate change is real.""I believe you, but do we know how much humans are contributing to it?""Does it matter if the end result is the catastrophic destruction of our planet and life on it?"

He didn't have an answer for me. At least the guy believes in science though.

Because the evidence of global warming is now overwhelming and undeniably impacting people's lives, "humans aren't at fault" is just the latest point that the goal posts have been shifted to. It's like a six-year-old who's been denying that the DVD player is broken and when presented with the crayon-stuffed DVD player insists it was not their fault and then gives you a link to a website about crayon-stuffed DVD players being used as fusion generators and tells you to "start here".

My father in law and me last night."Climate change is real.""I believe you, but do we know how much humans are contributing to it?""Does it matter if the end result is the catastrophic destruction of our planet and life on it?"

He didn't have an answer for me. At least the guy believes in science though.

Here's a olive branch to all you staunch defenders of the GOP's position that anthropogenic climate change is a Chinese hoax designed to make you all look foolish:

YOU'VE WON. We've done basically nothing about a problem that has been clearly defined and understood since the 70s and like the IPCC said we've run out of time short of crippling the world economy to reverse our course.

You've won.

You've won.

You don't need "skeptic" graphs. You don't need junk science paid for by oil lobbyists. You've already won. Just take your victory and gloat... there is literally nothing that will come of it in terms of US policy. Gloat through the heat waves, droughts, f*cked up weather patterns and longer, rainier tropical cyclones.

You won. All the red-hued luminaries in this thread represent the governing opinion in this nation and the world. Sardonicobserver, Zeb Hesselgresser, et al... you won. We're doing what you advocate: absolutely nothing.

beverly8:Gubbo: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

<snip>

Baffle with bullshiat

actually, the part about it being altered is true, however, they have been altered in the opposite direction. they arent being amped up, they have been being toned down. a lot.

we do? took about one week to install my solar. will have powerwall 2.0 batteries shortly, my house was already all electric, and hopefully get myself a leaf or another plug in electric vehicle.....sure while I can't entirely get off fossil fuels (v8 truck is not going all electric anytime soon...though not against going bio diesel), I will drop my usage of them by close to 98%.

so that road map was about 3 months for me to drop 75 or more percent of my fossil fuel use.

sardonicobserver:ArinTheLost: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energ ...

It's hilarious. It would be SO EASY to just accept what people who know more than you know. Instead, you have to create this mythology. And believe it.

ArinTheLost:sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only ...

Some simpler things are very likely true, like higher temperatures leading to more hurricanes and bigger ones. Our measurements show that we are about 1 F warmer than a couple of decades ago, and it's unclear how much effect this will have. It's also unclear how much effect industrial carbon emissions have on global warming - correlation is not causation, and all the logic I've seen is based on estimates of unknown accuracy about CO2 concentrations during climate swings, with no hint of where that CO2 came from. In particular, does higher temperature increase protozoan and animal activity, thus perturbing the organic carbon cycle, are we talking about limestone in subduction layers causing associated volcanic action to release all that stored up carbonate as CO2 and calcium compounds? If there is an important effect available by, say, stopping the fires in Brazil that contribute so much CO2, or decreasing our beef consumption to decrease the CO2-laden flatulence that is also a huge contributor, we don't have compelling data because climate science was politicized and corrupted in the 1990's.

What about investing in CO2 scrubbers in power plants (even natural gas fired, not just coal) and using the CO2 to feed adjacent algae ponds? Without accurate, reliable, scientific information we can't get the incentive to do that kind of research.

For those of you whose ox I gored, please understand that I'm actually trying to throw out ideas. Here's a bit of humor:

sardonicobserver:What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

JESUS CHRIST. I am SOOOO sick of idiot men who may as well be called Dunning-Kreuger lecturing me about MY farkING FIELD. You do not know what you're talking about, so why don't you just shut up and learn something from someone smarter than you?

Email gate turned up nothing. Yes, one guy had a "trick" to get noise out of the data and yes, it turned out to be a legit thing. I haven't googled "hide the decline" but I can assure you it's BS.

IF THE MODELS ARE WRONG, WHY ARE WE SEEING SO MUCH (a) ice melt at the poles, (b) extreme highs, and (c) more tropical storms, ALL OF WHICH ARE PREDICTED BY THE MODELS?!!?

Jesus Christ.

Look, the models are not perfect but they're actually pretty good. Go read "The Signal and the Noise" by Nate Silver (not a climate scientist so maybe you'll believe him?) if you don't believe me.

As much as you tire me out, at the end of the day, your idiot opinion doesn't matter. You got exactly what you want (no meaningful work to reduce emissions in the US) and you're already seeing the effects. If you weren't an idiot, you'd devest of any coastal property and make sure you've got a good water supply by now. And probably try to live close to the amenities you need so you can walk/bike if necessary.

Interceptor1:One, nobody wants to do anything about the climate change issue unless they can make money off of it. But even if they really didn't go for the money first, is there really anything we can do about it?

Two, the climate is always changing. Is it changing faster because of man? Who knows? The people in the US are too busy trying to turn a profit off of it.

1) The majority of votes in 2016 were against drumpf. Careful with your generalizations.

groppet:Summoner101: bigfatbuddhist: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

Well, peer reviewed analysis didn't get them off their butts...

Like most Republicans, it's only when it directly affects them that there's any chance for change. Typically, that ends up in demands for handouts from the Fed though. If an actual change in thought occurs, the empathy/sympathy will be narrowly defined to their exact circumstances.

Now even some conservatives in the insurance industry are starting to come around to climate change. Must be messing with their bottom line or something.

You should read about the insurance response to Katrina in 2005. Unless you have enough money to sue them for breach of contract, they are not going to pay for a mass disaster. It turns out most Americans don't have $150,000 to do that.Florida is a key GOP state, so I am not too worried. "The Villages" will be fully insured at no premium cost by Trump and Co.

gretzkyscores:I actually believe humans are having an impact on global climate, yet the harder the zealots rage and pout and scream that the end is near, the more I just sit back and laugh at their childish petulant ridiculousness. The more reasonable among us realize that there's no magic bullet, one-size-fits-all solution, and we'll simply have to continue to improvise, adapt, and engineer, just as we've been doing as a species for thousands of years.

StrikitRich:Given the choice of believing a NYT columnist or a meteorologist who studies hurricanes with an excellent track record predicting these storms, I'll go with Joe Bastardi over some NYT columnist with a deadline.

Momzilla59:Let's save the earth and recycle!Sounds great until you realize that the recycling companies are mostly inChina which just shut down importing such stuff as a direct result of D2S's tarrifs.Just hears a story on the radio how some cities are just shuttering their recycling programs - there's nowhere to send the stuff to.Now you're nodding and asking why there aren't businesses here in the USA doing this? China doesn't give a flying fark about the environment, that's why.If we tried this here with our regulations we would have to pay the companies to take our stuff.

guestguy: No one saw this coming...NO ONE, I say!

Now we know D2S' Fark handle.

China doesn't give a flying fark about the environment...which is why they have recycling companies..and why they are investing more on renewable energy and mass transit than us..

It would be harder to deny climate change if there was a year of no hurricanes. Hurricanes are part of the south east's climate, and there is no way to tell if a hurricane is scheduled, or because of climate change.

To properly evaluate this, we have to wait a year or two, then run a nice statistical analysis, look at standard deviations, and then make sense of the data. A heat wave or a blizzard doesn't prove anything for anyone other than you know what the weather is outside. If you don't know how to calculate standard deviations, you should have went to high school, that one is on you.

I actually believe humans are having an impact on global climate, yet the harder the zealots rage and pout and scream that the end is near, the more I just sit back and laugh at their childish petulant ridiculousness. The more reasonable among us realize that there's no magic bullet, one-size-fits-all solution, and we'll simply have to continue to improvise, adapt, and engineer, just as we've been doing as a species for thousands of years.

Given the choice of believing a NYT columnist or a meteorologist who studies hurricanes with an excellent track record predicting these storms, I'll go with Joe Bastardi over some NYT columnist with a deadline.

giantmeteor:We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only renewable sources ...

Which Koch brother are you?

What's truly hilarious about this is that the Koch brothers actually hired a real scientist back in 2010 to prop up the talking points we keep seeing above. Richard Muller spent two years and a couple of million dollars looking over all the evidence for climate change and correcting for all the bad data and uncounted error sources that our posters have been talking about this entire thread.

After all that effort, he came back to announce that those terrible, sloppy, data-faking climate scientists were, well, 100% correct about the Earth warming. After a little while longer he announced they were also 100% correct about it being human-caused.

Meanwhile, the derpsters are busy congratulating themselves on having an intelligent discussion while the rest of us are hysterical. This thread is the farking poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.

FYI, Douglas Adams was a hard-core environmentalist who not only wrote books about the need to act now in order to save the environment, but also included a variety of things in H2G2 (the source of your quote) mocking people who are willfully ignorant about such things. Please don't use a random quote of his from a work of fiction to justify your ignorance and inaction on a topic that he cared deeply about.

ArinTheLost:Thank god someone here can think for themselves instead of making this a partisan issue. Lots of shouting people down here and not much intelligent discourse until I read your post. I have read both sides of this issue recently and there is no hard science (proof) that shows an increase in hurricane activity or strength attributed to global climate change. There are suggestions and computer models and educated guesses galore but nobody actually knows how much impact humans have on the global climate. You cannot deny climate change because climate has and always will change it will never stay the same. In the eternal words of Douglas Adams "Don't Panic".

Let's save the earth and recycle!Sounds great until you realize that the recycling companies are mostly inChina which just shut down importing such stuff as a direct result of D2S's tarrifs.Just hears a story on the radio how some cities are just shuttering their recycling programs - there's nowhere to send the stuff to.Now you're nodding and asking why there aren't businesses here in the USA doing this? China doesn't give a flying fark about the environment, that's why.If we tried this here with our regulations we would have to pay the companies to take our stuff.

sardonicobserver:Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only renewable sources ...

Thank god someone here can think for themselves instead of making this a partisan issue. Lots of shouting people down here and not much intelligent discourse until I read your post. I have read both sides of this issue recently and there is no hard science (proof) that shows an increase in hurricane activity or strength attributed to global climate change. There are suggestions and computer models and educated guesses galore but nobody actually knows how much impact humans have on the global climate. You cannot deny climate change because climate has and always will change it will never stay the same. In the eternal words of Douglas Adams "Don't Panic".

cameroncrazy1984:durbnpoisn: No one is denying climate change anymore. We can now officially drop that whole thing.

What people are denying is that humans are responsible. The main reason they are denying this is that regulations affect corporate profits. And these denials are at a national level of multiple HUGE countries.

The biggest problem with all of this is that the US is only one contributor. And we are doing some things to help. But that says nothing about the greatest contributors to the problem in other countries. And it makes matters far worse that when American companies are stifled too much by regulation, they move their pollution to another country that is more pollution friendly.

If you don't know that this is the problem than you haven't been paying attention.

So did you just miss the whole Paris agreement thing or

I did not. And you must have missed the point of my post.It's too little too late. Plus, the US has backed out of it.

sardonicobserver:Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only renewable sources ...

winedrinkingman:I have religious family members from that region who have already said they think Panama City was hit by a hurricane because of all the proud people and sinfulness in the area, and that God was trying to make them repent and change there ways. That's right. It wasn't climate change, it was because the Florida Panhandle wasn't religious enough.

I... can't smart this because there's secondhand derp in it, and I can't funny it because it's not funny.

wearetheworld:cameroncrazy1984: wearetheworld: jso2897: Gubbo: For the sake of the dumbest people in the world. The US isn't the only country.

The Atlantic isn't the only body of water.

The "make landfall" qualifier is totally irrelevant. It's a meaningless conversational gambit.Whether related death and damage have been rising dramatically - in the US, and elsewhere.How many storms are still at some arbitrary rating when they hit land is a meaningless, artificial red herring - thrown into the conversation to distract, rather than illuminate.

It's as if the world population is growing, and there are more people around to die because of weather.

I bet you actually believe this and haven't done any research on whether it could be true. It's just common sense, right?

Lucky LaRue:Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

I always liked this analogy ...

Getting a freakishly strong hurricane is a bit like taking a shot at a basket from a distance. Climate change allows you to move closer to the hoop. You're not guaranteed to make a shot when you standing directly in front of the basket, but you've got a much better chance.

durbnpoisn:No one is denying climate change anymore. We can now officially drop that whole thing.

What people are denying is that humans are responsible. The main reason they are denying this is that regulations affect corporate profits. And these denials are at a national level of multiple HUGE countries.

The biggest problem with all of this is that the US is only one contributor. And we are doing some things to help. But that says nothing about the greatest contributors to the problem in other countries. And it makes matters far worse that when American companies are stifled too much by regulation, they move their pollution to another country that is more pollution friendly.

If you don't know that this is the problem than you haven't been paying attention.

THAT'S one of my favorite tactics of the non-thinking right. So, I ask them: "Do you REALLY think that there's a conspiracy of EVERY climate scientist in the world to lie outright? Why would they do that?"

The funniest answer they give is "it makes more money for climate scientists"...

It deteriorates from there...

My cousin is a climate scientist (he would cringe sooooo hard if he heard me use that title) and is reaches and does research at a college where, I am quite confident, he makes about $75k. This argument from the right is farking hilarious - especially those in the energy sector (who get bonuses in excess of $75k).

wearetheworld:Gubbo: wearetheworld: Gubbo: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

holdmybones:Glockenspiel Hero: It was absurd last night- the wunderground hurricane blog discussion was completely overrun with these idiots, all spouting their Fox News approved talking points just like Lucky Lamoron above.

They all sound so authoritative if you know nothing about the science, and they are so deep into the Dunning Kruger hole they have no idea how stupid they sound to the weather nerds on that forum.

And yes, Lucky, we all understand the difference between weather and climate. Perhaps you'd like to discuss ocean heat content over time and the effect of rising sea temperatures on tropical storm formation?

I tuned in for a few minutes yesterday and....is hurricane/weather denial a new thing?

Yup. It's the newest troll/rightwing tactic. Call any reporting on a storm as overblown and fearmongering by the MSM for profit.

Glockenspiel Hero:It was absurd last night- the wunderground hurricane blog discussion was completely overrun with these idiots, all spouting their Fox News approved talking points just like Lucky Lamoron above.

They all sound so authoritative if you know nothing about the science, and they are so deep into the Dunning Kruger hole they have no idea how stupid they sound to the weather nerds on that forum.

And yes, Lucky, we all understand the difference between weather and climate. Perhaps you'd like to discuss ocean heat content over time and the effect of rising sea temperatures on tropical storm formation?

I tuned in for a few minutes yesterday and....is hurricane/weather denial a new thing?

jso2897:Gubbo: For the sake of the dumbest people in the world. The US isn't the only country.

The Atlantic isn't the only body of water.

The "make landfall" qualifier is totally irrelevant. It's a meaningless conversational gambit.Whether related death and damage have been rising dramatically - in the US, and elsewhere.How many storms are still at some arbitrary rating when they hit land is a meaningless, artificial red herring - thrown into the conversation to distract, rather than illuminate.

It's as if the world population is growing, and there are more people around to die because of weather.

Gubbo:For the sake of the dumbest people in the world. The US isn't the only country.

The Atlantic isn't the only body of water.

The "make landfall" qualifier is totally irrelevant. It's a meaningless conversational gambit.Whether related death and damage have been rising dramatically - in the US, and elsewhere.How many storms are still at some arbitrary rating when they hit land is a meaningless, artificial red herring - thrown into the conversation to distract, rather than illuminate.

Sean VasDeferens:UNC_Samurai: We just went 12 years without a hurricane making landfall in the U.S.

Ike, Irene, and Matthew would like to have a word with this pig-farking ignorance.

Get woke https://www.washingtonpost.com/n​ews/energy-environment/wp/2017/09/07/t​he-science-behind-the-u-s-s-strange-hu​rricane-drought-and-its-sudden-end/?no​redirect=on&utm_term=.c76f81dbcc9d

Since 2005, though, we've experienced no major U.S. landfalls until Harvey this year.

Hurricane Hermine: Sept. 2016, this Category 1 storm was the first hurricane to hit Florida since Hurricane Wilma in 2005.• Hurricane Arthur: July 2014, this storm whipped North Carolina's Outer Banks with winds of 100 mph, making it a Category 2.• Hurricane Sandy: Oct. 2012, Superstorm Sandy, the largest Atlantic system on record, slammed into New Jersey. It was the deadliest hurricane to hit the northeastern U.S. in 40 years and the second-costliest in the nation's history.Hurricane Isaac: Aug. 2012, this deadly Category 1 storm hit the coast of Louisiana and Mississippi right around the seventh anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.• Hurricane Irene: Sept. 2011, Irene hit North Carolina as a Category 1 storm. The storm caused major flooding in the northeast, and Irene's effects were felt along the entire Eastern seaboard.• Hurricane Ike: Sept. 2008, the last hurricane to strike Texas was Hurricane Ike, a powerful Category 2 storm that caused billions in damage and became the third most costly storm in the U.S., after Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina.• Hurricane Gustav: Sept. 2008, tens of thousands evacuated before this Category 2 storm hit the Louisiana coast, New Orlean's first major storm since Katrina.Hurricane Dolly: July 2008, Dolly made landfall in Texas as a Category 2 storm and gradually weakened to a tropical storm as it progressed.•Hurricane Humberto:Sept. 2007, although initially weak this record-breaking storm intensified rapidly before making landfall in Texas as a Category 1 storm.

Sean VasDeferens:Gubbo: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

sardonicobserver:Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

The most ironic thing is, Republicans came up with the term "climate change". They were trying to downplay the more disturbing term "global warming" and started using a less emotional phrase. When global temperatures started to lower for a few years, Democrats quickly switched to the Republican term. Now that the temperature is going back up, everyone is cool with just calling it climate change.